Bring back hanging !

[algie]

No, whether the U.K does or doesn't have the death penalty is irrelevant to my argument. The reason I think it is morally unjustifiable is because:



I shall try and explain that a little better. I believe the role of the state is to provide a framework within which humans can best live. As such it is a manmade construct, designed to protect the 'rights' of it's citizens by standing 'above' and apart from the passions, jealousies and weaknesses of the average human life. The most fundamental right a human has-and one that IMO, transcends the state- is the right to life. No-one has the right to take anothers life. However, as no-one has the right to take a life and as the state is an arbiter that stands above and beyond the petty frailties of humanity, it most definitely does not, and cannot, have the right to take a life. If it does, then, IMO, it collapses as a moral authority as it has descended to the level of 'the savage'. It has every right to punish the citizen but that punishment, IMO, cannot be death.

Hope that helps?

So the books like the bible and Koran are wrong just because your against it?

If someone takes someones life intentially then he or she must sacrifice there's.There's two sides to this arguement and thats why some countries support hanging

 

[Mr Burns]

Sort of. If we decided it was a price worth paying, then I guess so.

Obviously if alcohol or porn were found indisputably to be the cause, then probably not because as a society, we would rightly or wrongly probably choose not to ban those things for the sake of preventing 2 child murders a year. But if hypothetically, the cause is something more preventable or easier for society to give up - say poverty, smoking, too much mobile phone use, supporting Palace, then maybe.

I think the difference of opinion here is that - death penalty aside - you don't think it's worth finding out why such murders are committed, and I do.

Apart from supporting Palace Easier for society to give up. Poverty....... smoking........ mobile phones........ oh dear! So should we ban religion, because worldwide, that's probably up there with the biggest cause of death today. (But thats for another

 

[Mr Burns]

.

 

[El Presidente]

I'm not trying to trivialise the issue. And I didn't meanto mis-quote if I did. I still dont quite get where you are coming from? Would you ban alchol to stop people killing someone by drink driving. I though that is what you said.

Personally I wouldn't stop alcohol sales.

However, if our aim is to reduce unlawful killings, hanging murderers would possibly achieve this (assuming that they would re-offend if and when they are released), although most murders are 'crimes of passion' rather than random acts of violence. Against that there is the danger of killing an innocent person, is it a price worth paying?

Stopping alcohol sales would reduce unlawful deaths by a far bigger number, so what I am saying again is it a price worth paying?

 

[algie]

Personally I wouldn't stop alcohol sales.

However, if our aim is to reduce unlawful killings, hanging murderers would possibly achieve this (assuming that they would re-offend if and when they are released), although most murders are 'crimes of passion' rather than random acts of violence. Against that there is the danger of killing an innocent person, is it a price worth paying?

Stopping alcohol sales would reduce unlawful deaths by a far bigger number, so what I am saying again is it a price worth paying?

You might as well ban cars and many other things in life.We might as all well wear sandals, eat lental burgers and hug trees

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

So the books like the bible and Koran are wrong just because your against it?

If someone takes someones life intentially then he or she must sacrifice there's.There's two sides to this arguement and thats why some countries support hanging

I'm no expert on the bible, but apart from saying 'an eye for an eye' doesn't it also say 'thou shalt not kill'?

I know there's two sides to the argument, that's true for any disagreement(unless L.I's involved!). I'm just putting my side of it and explaining why i think that practically and ethically/morally the death penalty is wrong. I would argue that if someone takes someone's life then they sacrifice their place in society, not their life.

 

[El Presidente]

We might as all well wear sandals, eat lental burgers and hug trees

Lental (sic) burgers give you terrible wind, I would not go that far.

 

[cjd]

But it doesnt act as a deterrant!


Most punishments to the hardened criminals/pervets etc don,t act as a deterent , I agree...but oddly enough, it does to the vast majority of the public. Were it not for prison etc , I,m sure a lot of us may be tempted to commit a crime in desperate circumstances. When i was at school corporal punishment never stopped the yobs....but it did deter the vast majority of school kids from commtting mis-demeaners. Anyway....back to hanging.....my view is that I would support hanging. The one thing that is certain in this world, is that we are all going to die. I see hanging as merely bringing that date of your demise forward. The benefits would be, one less murderer on the streets in the future, and a huge saving on costs.
However, hanging will not be brought back, so I just have to accept it.

 

[El Presidente]

However, hanging will not be brought back, so I just have to accept it.

Bit of a ropey argument there though

 

[British Bulldog]

No. And clearly you're not going to, so we'll just forget it.

You are in favour of the death penalty and f*** any innocent people who are wrongly sent to the gallows. It's perfectly clear.

I quite clearly did answer you simster in that no innocent person should be put to death just as no innocent person should be subject to rape and murder. Your asking me to pluck a figure out of thin air of how many innocent people should be hung before we prove that the death penalty should be abolished again? Well how many more innocent people have to be subject to murder in this country before the death penalty is re introduced?

Yes I agree with the death penalty for the crimes and reasons i've allready explained in previous posts and I will continue to stand by my views. If you wish to continue with your views that we should try to understand and get inside the mind of these people then that is your choice.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Last year, in Cheddleton,just 2 miles from where i live. Mark Goldstraw,poured 5 litre,s of petrol into a house. He fled while a 8yo,10yo,16yo and long term boyfriend, (of the mother died) DIED in the fire. FOUR DEAD in one fire.Yet only 35 years.

 

[British Bulldog]

Or indeed "that's death". But firstly, thanks for being honest enough to answer the point. That sets you apart from BB who decided against this slippery slope.

And would that be the same slippery slope you went down a while ago when you could'nt even explain any method of how you would get in the mind of these monsters?

I'm all for healthy debate fella but you run out of that a while ago and just resorted to jumping on the band wagon of other posters views.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Im sure someone will correct me if im wrong but Dosent the death penalty still technically exist in this country? For exeptional crimes?

Think someone's already answered, but it existed until 1998, for a few proper old fashioned offences like treason and piracy.

It was then abolished primarily to come in line with European human rights legislation. The UK has signed up to a protocol abolishing the death penalty with no exceptions.

I think a few European countries reserve the right to use it under extreme circumstances- in times of war, in a nutshell- but the UK opted for total, unequivocal abolition.

 

[The Large One]

So the books like the bible and Koran are wrong just because your against it?

If someone takes someones life intentially then he or she must sacrifice there's.There's two sides to this arguement and thats why some countries support hanging

I can't speak for the Koran, although I suspect it serves the same purpose as the Bible.

That is, the Holy Bible is a politically motivated documented, created, edited, manipulated and published by politicians to ensure social obedience using the justification of a unproven claim of divine intervention to tresspassers.

Therefore, it can be said the Bible is document of its time, and not particularly relevant to today's (western European) society, which has moved on vastly since then. So it's not so much as case of whether the Bible is right or wrong, to me it's more a case of whether it's relevant to use it as a justification for capital punishment.

 

[Mr Burns]

What's a bible. Is that, that book about Jebus